mr. adegbile, but the senate, the senate democrats on the committee would not allow her to testify. they didn't let her tell her story, and instead they voted to send his name on to the senate floor for confirmation. mr. president, i think maureen faulkner has a right to be heard so i hope my colleagues will listen as i read a letter that she wrote addressing all of us. "dear senators, while i would have preferred to do so personally, i'm writing this letter peeling to your sense of right and wrong, good and evil as you consider the nomination of debo p. adegbile to be the next head of the civil rights division of the justice department. 33 years ago, my husband, philadelphia police officer daniel faulkner, was violently murdered by a self-professed revolutionary named mumia abu-jamal.

i was 24 years old. while most of my friends spent their summer at the jersey shore, i sat in a shot, steamy courtroom and watched in horror and disbelief as the man who murdered my husband tried to turn the courtroom into a political stage where he could spew his hate and contempt for this country and our justice system. at the moment my husband's bloodstained shirt was displayed by the evidence handler, mumia abu-jamal smirked at me, demonstrating his contempt for law enforcement. thankfully a racially mixed injury found him guilty. the following day they sentenced him to death for the brutal act he had committed. that's when my second nightmare began. for three decades, my family and i endured appeal after appeal. each rooted in lies, disportions, and allegations of

civil rights violations. and year after year, judge after judge the conviction and sentence were unanimously upheld. then 30 years after the fact, my family, society and i were denied justice when three federal district court judges who had found error in every kopetski tal case that has ever come before them, overturned the death sentence. today as my husband lies 33 years in the grave, his killer has become a wealthy celebrity. he pens books and social commentaries, critical of our country. he regularly uses his nearly unlimited access to the prison telephone to do radio programs, as cable -- has cable tv in his cell and is permitted to hold his wife, children and grandchildren in his arms when they visit. old wounds have been ripped open and additional insult is brought upon our law enforcement community in this country by president obama's nomination of

debo adegbile. while publicly demonstrating he doesn't even know my husband's name, mr. adegbile feigns sympathy and caring for my husband and me. in reality he was a willing accomplice in mumia abu-jamal's k34reus. he chose to throw the wait of his organization behind mumia abu-jamal and has publicly stated he would get mumia abu-jamal off death row. mr. adegbile holds mumia abu-jamal, a row morseless cop killer in high esteem. we know this because attorneys working under supervision have stood before public rallies held in support of my husband's killer and openly professed it was an dream honor toen rep the man who put a hollow based bullet in my husband's brain as he lay on the ground,about

wounded, defenseless. while mr. adegbile and those who support his nomination will undoubtedly argue he did not personally make such statements he did nothing to counter or stop them. in the end like so many toarps before him, mr. adegbile's allegations of civil rights abuse rang hollow. mumia abu-jamal's defort death sentence was not overturned because of abuse us but because three judges with a personal dislike for cap tal punishment conveniently decided that the wording in a form may had have con used jurors. through his words, decisions and action he has clearly demonstrate he is he is not the best person to fill this important position. certainly there are others with similar qualifications that would be better choices. i would argue that mr. adegbile's decision to defend a cop killer should preclude him from holding any

public position. your decision means a lot to me personally. the thought that mr. adegbile would be rewarded in part for the work did he for my husband's killer is revolting. throughout my long ordeal i have frequently been labeled a racist by many who support my husband's killer simply because he is black and i'm white. i've also been asked to throw my name, my voice and support behind political candidates from both parties. in each case i have declined. i've always believed that my husband's death and my quest for justice transcends politics and race. from my heart, i'm asking you to do the same thing. set aside any partisan feelings you have and do the right thing today when you vote on mr. adegbile's confirmation. please spare my family and me from further pain. sincerely, maureen faulkner. mr. president, as the justice

department's web site explains the civil rights division of the justice department -- quote -- "fulfills a critical mission in upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all individuals" -- end quote. clearly this requires that the head of the civil rights division have an absolute commitment to truth and justice. there are many highly qualified americans who can carry out this critical mission. mr. adegbile's record creates serious doubts that he is among them. for these reasons, mr. president, i urge you and my colleagues to oppose the nomination of mr. debo adegbile to serve as assistant attorney general for the justice department's civil rights division and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i have to begin with two unanimous consent requests for committees to meet today during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i'm here now for the 60th time to ask my colleagues to wake up to the threats of climate change, to see the damage that

is being used by our -- caused by our shifting climate we need look no further than the winter olympics. the most recent winter olympics concluded last month. over 200 countries broadcast the event to an estimated 3.8 billion people worldwide. in rhode island, we rooted for our very own rarissa castelli who brought broth home a bronze medal in pairs figure skating. but what does the future hold for the winter olympics. the presiding officer:th -- the winter olympics? mr. whitehouse: snow pack in traditionally snowy regions is decliepg. a report from the university of waterloo found that february daytime high temperatures during

the winter gaiments games have been steadily increasing -- games have been steadily increasing from the 1920's and 1950's to the 21st century. this forced the international olympic committee to take drastic measures to ensure adequate conditions, ramping up the use of snowmaking machines and physically transferring large amounts of snow to the site of the games. this is just the beginning of things to come. if our emissions are left unchecked like the republicans and the polluters prefer, the intergovernmental panel on climate change reports we will likely see warming between 4.7 degrees and 8.6 degrees fahrenheit by the end of the century. the waterloo report found only ten of the 19 cities to

previously host the winter olympics would be cold enough to host the games by the 2080's. there could be no sochi olympics, no vancouver or squaw valley or sarajevo olympics. and that's if we're able to stabilize and ultimately reduce our global carbon emissions before the year 2100. if carbon pollution continues on the current pace, only six of these cities could host the games. forget about torino and that begano -- nagano, lake placid and lillehammer. over 110 athletes signed a letter asking leaders to take

action to curb climate change. they said and i'll quote here -- "as winter olympic athletes, our lives revolve around the winter and if chieng -- climate change continues at this pace, the economies of the towns where we live and train will be ruined. our sports will be forever changed and the winter olympics as we know it will be a thing of the past." much as we all love the winter olympics, we could do without them. we can't very well do without freshwater. glaciers represent the largest reserves of freshwater on earth. their freshwater feeds our rivers and streams, waters our farms and ranches, and provides some of our drinking water. glacier loss is happening all over the world including right here in the united states.

and just like atmospheric warming, ocean acidification and sea level rise, this evidence of climate change is not a theoretical projection. it is not a complex scientific model. it is simple observation and measurement. this is grinnell graisher -- glacier in montana's glacier national park. on top we see the glacier in 1940. on the bottom is the same spot in 2004. grinnell glacier has lost 90% of its ice in the last century. the glacier has almost disappeared, or as the united states geological survey puts it, effects of climate change change -- sorry, effects of global chieng are strikingly --

climate change are strikingly clear. the the united states geological survey further explains and i'll quote here, "glacier recession is underway and many glaciers have already disappeared. the retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. it has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. in 2010 we consider there to be only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remaining in glacier national park. 150 glaciers 100 years ago, 25

now. here we see a similar change at lillian glacier in washington's olympic national park. on the top we see a large, healthy glacier in 1905, and this almost unrecognizable view of the same landscape in 2010. and, of course, this is not just happening in the united states. countries across the world are seeing rapid glacier loss. a 2013 article published in "nature" found clear evidence that the tibetan glaciers, the world's third largest ice reservoir behind antarctica and greenland, are shrinking. even at altitudes above 20,000 feet. south america's andean glaciers are retreating at an increasing

rate, climatologist from ohio state university at nassau loaned my office a piece of a plant that had been preserved under the calcaia ice cap in peru for at least 5,200 years. a little bitty piece of plant but under the pressure of the ice and the cold it had been preserved for 52 centuries. today, due to glacial retreat, it was exposed and i now have that piece of plant in my office. glaciers are some of the most largest reservoirs of fresh water on edge. according to the united states geological survey, glaciers store 69% of the world's fresh water. annual spring glacial melt provides a dependable source of water for streams, plants,

spawning fish, farming, and now often hydroelectricity. in central asia, hundreds of millions of people rely on the tibetan glaciers to supply drinking water. the same goes for the people of peru and bolivia in the andes. this is a crisis we must take seriously. unfortunately, congress remains barricaded behind a blockade of polluter influence. just last week a republican witness at an environment and public works committee hearing on adapting to climate change argued that we'd all be better off if the glaciers just went away. if they just melted away. after all, he told the committee, we evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist.

it could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life. he continued, "obviously if the glaciers stop melting, there will be no more meta-wall street from them -- no more melt water from them, so are you saying that you want the glaciers to stop melting? en this where would the irrigation water come from i say, let the glaciers melt." that's the witness the republicans put up. let the glaciers melt. i guess he missed the difference between seasonal melting, whose annual rhythms fill our streams and rivers for drinking water and fishing and farming and glaciers outright melting away. now, mr. president, there's another little trick the deniers like to play when it's or a little snow falls here in washington or back in their home

states, they say, how could there be global warming when it is cold out? and, yes, we have had a cold winter. but what scientists and other level-headed observers understand is the changes occurring in the climate are happening over longer periods than just one winter and across broader regions than just one state or even the united states. moreover, short-term temperature anomalies, like a coldsnap, might be worse because of climate change from changes in the jetstream, for instance. this chart shows how worldwide winter temperatures every year since 1880 compare with the 20th century average. you think there is a trend visible there? over 100 years.

yes, winter is still cold, but it's not as cold as it used to be. and this change is ravaging winter sports and tourism across the united states. the national resources -- natural resources defense council found that between 1999 and 2010, a lack of snowfall cost our ski industry a billion dollars. and up to 27,000 jobs. before the end of the century, the number of economically viable ski locations in new hampshire and maine will be cut in half. skiing in new york will be cut by three-quarters. and the report says there will be no ski area in connecticut or massachusetts. well, if you know your

geography, you know if that's true of connecticut and massachusetts, there goes rhode island's yagu valley ski slope. the bicameral task force on climate change, which i started with representative henry waxman, asked the national basketball association, major league baseball, the national hockey league, the national football league and the united states olympic committee to tell us what climate change means for their sports. the national hockey league chemicadeputy commissioner wrot, "hockey's relationship with the environment is unique. our sport was born on frozen ponds, where to this day players of all ages and skill levels learn to skate. for this magnificent tradition to continue, it is imperative that we recognize the importance of maintaining the environment." the park city foundation in utah predicts an annual local

temperature increase of 6.8 degrees fahrenheit by 2075. which could cause a complete loss of snowpack in the lower park city resort area of the rocky mountains. the foundation estimates that this will result in thousands of lost jobs, tens of millions in lost earnings, and hundreds of millions in lost economic growth. mr. president, while we in congress equivocate and stall, the evidence of climate change relentlessly mounts. the damage is being done in our atmosphere and our oceans, and the longer it takes us to wake up, the harder and more expensive it will be to fix it. the sickening part is that

everyone else is waking up. 65% of voters support the president taking significant steps to address climate change now. another poll found that 82% of americans believe we should start preparing now for rising sea levels and severe storms from climate change. even in the party that won't speak the words "climate change" any longer -- not since citizens united cleared the way for big spending by polluters into republican primaries -- even in the republican party, among young republican voters 35 and under, the majority of them feel that climate denial is either ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. if that's what young republicans feel, that's a very poor foundation for the republican

party to maintain this denier policy. mr. president, the campaign of money and denial that imprisons congress is as poisonous to our american democracy as carbon pollution is to our atmosphere, oceans, and, yes, glaciers. it the time to fight back -- it is time to fight back. it is time to wake up. i yield the floor. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today to pay tribute to the men and women across the country sesqui as police officers -- serving as police officers who protect law-abiding men's. it is out of this respect for

our nation's police officers that i also rise to oppose the nomination of debo adegbile to be the head of the department of justice's civil rights division. we must also remember our nation's fallen police officers who have bravely given their lives to serve our nation and to protect us. police officers help form the backbone of our country that supports the rule of law. they risk their lives every day to keep law-abiding americans safe. according to the f.b.i., in 2012, 95 law enforcement officers were killed in line-of-duty incidents and 52,901 officers were victims of line-of-duty assaults. 52,901. "the new york times" in 2012 observed, "as violent crime has

decreased across the country, a disturbing trend has emerged: rising numbers of police officers being killed." in 2008, 41 officers were killed. 41. in 2009, 48 officers were killed. in 2010, 56 officers were killed. in 2011, 72 officers were killed. and in 2012, 95 officers were killed. unfortunately, as byron york noted today, "the new york times" has not reported on the controversial nomination of debo adegbile to head the d.o.j. civil rights division. it is out of respect for all of our nation's police officers that i rise to oppose mr. adegbile's nomination. under adegbile's leadership and

supervision, the naacp legal defense fund brazenly politicized the murder of a philadelphia police officers, officer daniel faulkner. on december 9, 19 81, 25-year-old officer faulkner was murdered by wesley cook, who is widely known as mumia abu-jamal. officer faulkner was shot several times. the fatal shot was when abu-jamal pointed the gun inches from officer faulkner's face and pulled the trigger. during the trial, it was made known that abu-jamal was a supporter of the "move" organization, an anarchist group that explicitly advocates for violence against police officers. in a letter to the senate judiciary committee, mrs. faulkner described that during the trial when her

husband's bloodstained shirt was displayed by the evidence handler, abu-jamal turned in his chair and smirked directly at her. the grieving widow. the jury convened for a matter of hours before they came back with a guilty verdict and a death sentence. that was 1982. fast-afford 2-forward to the ye. adegbile was the director of litigation. in 2009, the legal defense fund began advocating for abu-jamal. first as amicus and then as cocounsel. now, to be clear, mr. president, every criminal defendant is entitled to an attorney. but adegbile's representation of abu-jamal was pure advocacy. abu-jamal's guilt was not in

doubt. four eyewitnesses saw the shooting. abu-jamal's confessed and stated in front of three witnesses that he hoped that officer faulkner died. there was significant ballistic and forensic evidence. for example, the murder weapon was registered to abu-jamal and found at the scene with spent shell casings. and abu-jamal already had a team of high-priced lawyers working pro bono who had filed decades of posttrial petitions and appeals delaying the carrying out of of his sentence. under aadegbile'adegbile's -- ur adegbile's supervision, rallies and protests and media campaign all portrayed mumia abu-jamal an unrepentant cop killer as a political prisoner. for example, a 2011l.d.f. press

release said, "abu-jamal is widely viewed as a symbol of the racial injustices of the death penalty." that press release also said, "mumia ab abu-jamal's death sentence are religionics of a time and place that was notorious for police and race discrimination. they held rallies and protests. this is advocacy. this is political advocacy. this is extreme and radical advocacy. this is not legal representation. they even went so far as to travel to france, to hold multiple rallies for abu-jamal. the french had already named a street after abu-jamal in a suburb of paris. this prompted the house of representatives in 2006 to vote

368-31 to condemn the murder of officer daniel faulkner and to earth the french town to -- and to urge the french town to change that street name. after phaging those flames of racial tension in the court of public opinion, adegbile pressed aggressive arguments on flais our courts of law. thankfully, the state and federal courts rejected those arguments. under adegbile you the l.d.f. initially argued in court that abu-jamal's death sentence should be overturned because he believed there should have been more for instance on -- after cang americans on abu-jamal's jury. during his sentencing on january 8, adegbile said that the l.d.f. filed a legal brief regarding merely jury instructions about the death penalty.

agjobs's initial argument had had -- there were arguments that abu-jamal's jury was unconstitutional because it didn't have, he argued, a significant number of african-americans serving under the jury. the courts rejected those arguments. the jury that convicted abu-jamal had two african-americans serving on it. it would have had a third african-american serving on it but abu-jamal instructed his lawyers to strike that person. mr. president, the fraternal order of police vehemently opposes this nomination. according to a letter written by the president of the f.o.p., adegbile's nomination only enforces the distrust to local law enforcement agencies, a trend that has continued from the then labor second tommer toz

was leading the civil rights division. thomas kersenow wrote, "responsible people should agree that going out of your way to defend a convicted cop killer long after it has become unequivocally clear that he was guilty and had suffered no violation of his civil rights, disqualifies one from serving as the head of a division of the u.s. department of justice." the obama administration's message with the nomination is clear. it wants even more politicization at the department of justice. mr. president, this is insulting to law enforcement officers everywhere. i stand with the fraternal order of police and oppose adegbile's nomination, and i urge my democratic colleagues to join the democratic senior senator from pennsylvania, senator bob casey, and vote "no" on this

nomination. this is not a matter of left wing or right wing. we all should agree that violent criminals should be punished. and we all should agree that those who go out of their way to advocate for, to celebrate, to lionize convicted cop killers are not suitable for major leadership roles at the u.s. department of justice. mr. president, i urge every member of this body to oppose that nomination. i yield the floor. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i rise today to -- the presiding officer: sir, we're in a quorum call. mr. flake: i ask to dispense the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: i rise to discuss the nomination of mr. debo adegbile to head the civil rights division of the department of justice. i attended mr. adegbile's hearing in the justice committee and submitted additional written

questions after the hearing. unfortunately, after hearing testimony and reviewing his responses to questions, i remain concerned with mr. adegbile's ability to set aside more than a decade of advocacy on behalf of this and other liberal causes to serve as a neutral enforcer of our nation's civil rights laws, and it appears i'm not the only person who has reached this conclusion. his nomination is opposed by numerous law enforcement officers, including those represented by the fraternal order of police, national sheriffs association, the major county sheriffs association, the national association of police organizations, the new jersey state policemen's benevolent association and the national narcotics officers association. this widespread opposition is clearly not driven by partisanship but by a heartfelt concern that this nominee is not

suited for the position. i have no doubt that mr. adegbile is an intelligent and a hardworking lawyer with a commendable record of advocacy, but that does not mean he should head the civil rights division. one of the responsibilities of the department of justice's civil rights division is to handle allegations by law enforcement officers from across the country. however, serious questions have been raised about mr. adegbile's ability to apply that law fairly in these cases, given his advocacy on behalf of a convicted cop killer. as a fraternal order of police stated in its letter of opposition, "in the decades mr. adegbile pushed this effort, he, quote, falsely disparched and savaged the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer." in order to further his case. the national narcotics

association shares this analysis of mr. adegbile's advocacy, noting that he -- quote -- "fabricated a baseless and unproven defense while also defaming the victim, police officer daniel faulkner, which raises serious questions about the nominee's judgment especially considering the important position to which he has been nominated." unquote. there is no doubt as to mumia abu-jamal's guilt. afterwards he bragged about shooting daniel faulkner, and four witnesses saw the shooting. after being convicted and sentenced, mumia's lawyers filed dozens of appeals on his behalf which would suggest he had more than adequate legal representation. however, almost 28 years after his conviction, mr. adegbile decided to volunteer his time to assist mumia. in a series of phraoepls and precedents -- appeals and

precedents mr. adegbile's organization called into question the law enforcement officer responsible for mr. mumia's sentence and called it relic of a time and place notorious for police abuse and discrimination. as a philadelphia district attorney opposition letter states, mr. adegbile's work on the case -- quote -- "sends a message of contempt to police officers who risk their lives every day to maintain the peace." the d.a. concluded that mr. adegbile is -- quote -- "ill-suited for the pivotal role in the justice department." unquote. these appalling facts in this case are well known. in fact, in 2006 the house of representatives passed a resolution condemning the history of this case and recognizing the culpability of mumia by a vote of 368-31. there are others like me now

serving in this chamber who voted in favor of that resolution. it's deeply troubling that we are faced with voting on this nominee now after senate rules have been broken and the minority has no say in executive or judicial nominations. requiring the support of at least some minority senators discourages both the nomination and appointment of fringe or problematic nominees, something that benefits the country as a whole. those rules ensure that the senate was the cooling saucer that george washington and other founders intended. they also -- they ensured that the heads of executive agencies were responsive to both the majority and the minority parties. that is no longer the case. i do not think we would be moving forward on such a divisive nominee, one who elicits widespread opposition from across the political spectrum if the majority had not

employed the nuclear option last november. mr. president, i hope we don't move forward with this nomination. i hope my colleagues will join me and others in voicing opposition to this nomination moving ahead. and i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the nomination of debo adegbile to head the civil rights division of the department of justice. the constitution grants the president the power to nominate individuals to head various agencies and departments, but it falls to us here in the united states senate to ensure these

nominations are worthy of that honor and are ready for that responsibility. i don't make it a practice of opposing nominees. in fact, i generally give the president discretion there. i have voted to give him wide latitude in filling the executive branch with individuals of his choice when i believe that they are qualified. in fact, i have voted along with the minority of republicans to endorse and confirm a number of the president's nominees. but when it comes to a nominee who lacks the essential qualifications to fill one of these high offices, those of us charged with providing advice and consent cannot remain silent. unfortunately, this is one of those occasions. mr. president, it takes more than a law degree from a prestigious school and an impressive resume to head an agency as important as the civil rights division at the department of justice. most important, i think it takes judgment, and that's something that cannot be measured by test scores or diplomas. it can only be measured over time through someone's actions.

if we look at mr. adegbile's record, it becomes obvious to me why so many of us here in the senate and so many around the country, including the fraternal order of police, who have not opposed an executive branch nomination, by the way, in 17 years are taking a strong stand against this confirmation. first, as some of his colleagues -- my colleagues here on the senate floor have noted, mr. adegbile has a history of taking extreme positions on some of our fundamental constitutional rights that i think are out of step with the views of the american people. the judgments of our judiciary and our amazing history. in the case of hosana taber versus eeoc, mr. adegbile argued that religious institutions do not have the right to hire or fire individuals responsible for conveying of church teachings. a view if it were to become law would severely undermine religious liberty. mr. adegbile was so out of step with the constitution on that issue that his view was rejected

by the supreme court. 9-0. which in today's typical 5-4 split in the supreme court is quite an accomplishment. mr. adegbile's view of the first amendment is troubling. so, too, are his views of the second amendment. he has repeatedly asserted that the second amendment does not, and i quote, protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms. mr. adegbile had his way, millions of americans would lose one of their most cherished rights just like that. whenever a piece of gun control legislation comes to the floor of this chamber, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle -- in fact, often my colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- assure us they will all respect the fundamental right to bear arms. it's unfortunate that despite the words of the constitution and its interpretation by the supreme court, mr. adegbile cannot give us those same assurances. and then there is the case of mumia abu-jamal. abu-jamal is a murder. in -- a murderer.

in 1981, he gunned down a police officer named daniel faulkner in a philadelphia street. in an act of unmatched brutality, abu-jamal in front of four witnesses stood over officer faulkner as he lay dying and shot him in the face. a mountain of evidence from eyewitness accounts to forensics to his own words make it clear beyond any doubt that abu-jamal killed officer faulkner that day in december, 1981. still, abu-jamal deserved to stay in court just like any other american accused of a crime. he got his day in court. he deserved competent counsel. he got that, too. he deserved an opportunity to appeal. and he got it. in fact, activists turned it from a criminal matter, an issue of justice, into a political cause, so he received some of the best counsel in the country, and they filed appeal after appeal. all of which were rejected. but that didn't stop mr. adegbile from claiming that

abu-jamal was a victim of rhythm and a corrupt -- victim of racism and a corrupt judicial system. for mr. adegbile, abu-jamal's case was apparently an opportunity to focus more on a political agenda than the case at hand. abu-jamal's guilt or innocence was not really the concern. mr. president, debo adegbile is free to make any arguments he sees fit about the first and second amendment. he is free to turn the brutal murder of a police officer into a cause to advance a political agenda, but when he does so, i think it says something about his judgment and it says something about his fitness to lead the civil rights division of the department of justice. the department of justice and police forces around our country should be working together to ensure that minority rights are respected and that civil rights abuses are punished. this nominee would only make that work more difficult, in my view. that's because, as the fraternal

order of police wrote in a letter to president obama -- this is from the f.o.p. -- they said if mr. adegbile is confirmed, it will serve to, and i quote, exacerbate growing division and distrust, end quote, between the civil rights division which is charged with securing our most basic freedoms and the men and women of law enforcement who defend those freedoms by putting their lives on the line every day. i think we can and should do better with a nominee who can work with the fraternal order of police and other law enforcement around the country in ensuring that our basic freedoms are secured through the department of justice civil rights division. for these reasons, mr. president, i oppose the nomination of mr. adegbile to this position and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i have been discussing the ukraine crisis with my constituents and a number of indiana media outlets for the last few days, and virtually every interview or conversation on the subject includes early on this question -- what difference does this make to us here in indiana? what american interests are at stake? and these are legitimate questions. and they deserve an answer. because before we commit america to address potential conflicts, we need to key fine what is our interest and what why should we be engaged? in this case we're not talking about the use of military force but what we're talking about and

talking about and should be examining other measures that can influence the outcome of a crisis situation that could have significant consequences for the american people. if we can't answer that question and we can't address that with a compelling answer, then we shouldn't get engaged. but if we can determine a compelling answer and reason why we should engage in some form, then we need to make sure the american people know why it is we're doing this and why this is important. ukraine is 5,000 miles away, trade between our two countries is minuscule and shrinking, only 30% of the ukrainian population shares our christian faith, or identifies with any faith, and the ukraine is a source of no energy or crucial materials, indeed the country is a source of instability and corruption.

so why should americans and hoosiers care about what's happening to a country 5,000 miles away? well, let me suggest some reasons and then perhaps some suggestions as to what would be the best way for us to help influence this crisis situation in way that's positive for our country and, frankly, for western democracy and, frankly, for the world. the first and most obvious reason we should take this seriously is the central lesson of history. conflicts, even catastrophes, sometimes grow from small beginnings. most know that the assassination of an imperial relative in a balkan town in 1914 led to the death by violence of 37 million people, world war i. we also know that the cataclysm

of world war ii began with the stealth invasion of aws tra and czechoslovakia in 1938 and despite warnings and to what this might lead to, we saw the tragic loss of tens of millions of people in world war ii. this sort of is eerily reminiscent of russia's moves on crimea last week but a closer history in time is the, when a croatian city in 1992 and croatia's european neighbors did exactly nothing. our own secretary of state said repeatedly there were no american interests at stake. before that view was changed and nato intervened three years later, more than 100,000 people had been slaughtered.

so if the international community had had the collective wisdom and leadership and, frankly, courage or guts to simply tell belgrade civilian european population centers are no longer shelled in modern europe, all that suffering could have been prevented and our own armed forces could have stayed in their barracks and in their homes. so we should draw lessons, from lessons that we need to, to not confront later the question of whether or not we should intervene militarily in a ukrainian civil war or a war between ukraine and russia. instead, we must confront now the choice we have of doing nothing and letting putin have his way or lead an american and an international response to impose penalties on pute in's -- putin's russia so he comes to his senses. now, a second and related american interest is in the

stability of the european continent itself. ukraine is not an obscure side show. it is comprised of remnants of two european empires and deeply embedded in the integrated culture and economy of europe as a whole. disaster there threatens a very great deal in europe, a continent that we have spent a hundred years, trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to stabilize. european security and stability is been at the very heart of our foreign and defense policy for an entire century. if american foreign policy and american strategic interests in the world have any permanent core, it is that interest in europe's well-being. now, ukraine's conflict with the remnants of soviet style aggression portends serious threats to the rest of russia's borderlands nearly all of which was long dominated by red army

presence and force. the baltic states must be alarmed right now. if we do nothing, they could panic. poland has already summoned nato councils to consider its own security and therefore the security of the alliance. georgia painfully reflects that the paltry international response to its own war with russia five years ago surely emboldened putin in this latest adventure. in other words, we could be looking at a sudetenland moment. we hope that is not the case. it is no secret, though, putin has ambitions motivated by insecurities and a quest to restore lost glories. these are dangerous dilutions that if not confronted firmly could come to threaten us all. beyond history and beyond the

threats to continental security and stability. i am even more concerned about america's place in the world and how inaction will further harm it. abroad we are increasingly seen as a spent force, exhausted by interminable wars, politically divided and inert, strained and floundering without firm, articulate leadership. this is a bleak, incomplete picture of my clunt that more than -- country that more than anything else makes me determined to be a part of an effort to correct this perception of america. in many ways, we could potentially look at the ukrainian crisis as an opportunity. we have a chance now to summon our collective will and impose costs for putin's irresponsible behavior. we have many robust capabilities to reward those who join us in responsible, mutually

productive cooperation in managing world affairs and in punishing those who do not. this is the moment to demonstrate our return to the leadership role, the realities of this harsh world have long imposed upon us. this situation, this crisis which we now case, in ukraine, can be a moment to demonstrate our return to a leadership role, desperately needed by this tortured world, where the realities of this harsh world have long imposed upon us. so it is in our interest in in my opinion to lead the world toward solutions that we know are best for us all. no other country can manage it. we've seen that. and without that management, we risk things that could harm us in many, many ways and continue

to undermine our role in this world in providing for peace and stability. for these reasons i am tomorrow introducing a sense of the senate resolution articulating some of the steps that i think we and the president together should consider. none of these involve military force or the preparation for using such force. now is not the time to add to the violence but rather to remove the use of force by all parties as an option. i hope the resolution will contribute to the search for both a bipartisan, unified government approach to problem solving. and an international consensus on firm actions that will change russia's behavior. i'm saying, mr. president, we should stand united as americans with a single message and a single voice, led by our

leader, that shows that we are resolute in standing together with hopefully our european allies and others that want to join us in condemning the actions taken by putin and russia and in offering and proposing meaningful sanctions and measures that will bring the reality of russia's actions right straight to putin's desk and hopefully cause him to rethink this strategy. the resolution will commit the senate to work urgently with the president to identify a package of economic sanctions and other measures to compel putin to remove his armed forces from ukrainian territory and return that territory to full ukrainian sovereign control. further, i will suggest that we construct a complete comprehensive plan to isolate putin's russia from the community of nations. we seek a consensus on such a

plan with our friends and allies, everyone who wants to see a sovereign ukraine secure within its own borders, able to seek its own destiny on its own terms. that is the right of every sovereign nation. my resolution will also call upon the president to consider a number of measures to isolate and sanction russia. we could reschedule a meeting of the g-8 nations to take place as soon as possible at which meeting the participating nations should seriously consider a u.s. proposal to formally expel russia. the united states should propose to nato that the alliance immediately suspend operation of the russia nato council. the russian military and representation at nato should be expelled. a close relationship with russia's defense officials during a time russia has occupied a neighbor contravenes

the founding purpose of nato. how can we possibly meet on a russia-nato council basis when russia has invaded or occupied a neighbor? the president could ask for leadership of fiefa to reconsider -- fifa to reconsider its decision to put matches in russia and instead consider a worthy company. russia is celebrating the sochi olympics, we got the real measure of president putin, former k.g.b. director as to what his real intentions are. it's not to bring more goodwill toward russia and more confidence in that country. the united states could work with other members of the organization for security and cooperation in europe, the osce to deploy monitors in ukraine to confirm the security of the russian speaking population is not threatened.

this pretext for russian aggression must be removed to international satisfaction. senate leadership could dispatch a congressional delegation led by osce commissions -- commissioners to address this crisis. another option could be would be the the united states working with osce and german chancellor angela merkel to support a contact group to mediate direct negotiations between ukrainian and russian governments. the united states should not maintain the current status of diplomatic relations with russia at current levels. we other could downgrade our representation while maintaining its efficacy by announcing we will not be accepting our new ambassador to moscow. we should could dispatch a diplomat to ukraine to search as charge deaffairs to handle the

crisis. key would reduce our diplomatic presence to focus exclusively on crisis management, not business as usual. we could close our consulates general and require russia to make reciprocal steps to close their consulates in the u.s. we in congress should i believe expand the magnitsky accountability act to sanction the ministry of defense officials in the chain of command responsible for this invasion. duma leadership responsible for rubber stamping it and crimean officials complicit in its execution. the united states could also address sanctions that might serve to convince more segments of the russian population that their government is taking irresponsible steps contrary to the people's interests. to this end, we should suspend and could suspend russian eligibility for h 2 b work visas.

this is just a menu of suggestions, actions that we could take. actions that i think would impose upon russia a cost for their brazen attempt to intercede in the affairs of a sovereign nation. two of the most flimsiest of pretenses, invade a country under the pretext that its citizens there, or those who favored support for russia, were under some type of lethal threat. that is not the case, has been been demonstrated, has not been proven. now is the time to act, to act quickly and act together. our leverage is our leadership. we need to take that up -- we need to take up that powerful tool and show putin that he has misjudged us. now is the time for the u.s. to reassert its leadership in the

world by taking direct action. not through military action but through a menu of measures designed to bring russia to its senses and designed to protect the sovereign interest of those nations that are seeking to align with the west in a democratic way. with need that leadership from the president. we need that support from this congress in a bipartisan measure, and we need to speak with a united voice, hopefully with our european partners and others throughout the western world, in the free world, to send a message that russia cannot ignore and to impose a measure of costs that will impact that country's economy and impact the decision that has to be made by their president. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: